MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043467481 · doi:10.1086/341734

The Transport of Charged Particles in a Flowing Medium

2002· article· en· W2043467481 on OpenAlexaff
J. Y. Lu, G. P. Zank, R. Rankin, R. Marchand

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSolar and Space Plasma Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsScatteringPitch angleAnisotropyAdiabatic processComputational physicsIsotropyClassical mechanicsForward scatterOpticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The propagating source method for solving the time-dependent Boltzmann equation describing particle propagation in a magnetically turbulent medium is extended to a more realistic case that includes focusing and adiabatic deceleration. The solutions correspond to beam propagation in the solar wind. Pitch-angle scattering away from 90° is described by standard quasi-linear theory (QLT), while scattering through 90° is approximated by a BGK operator representing a slow mirroring process. The detailed numerical technique for solving the Fokker-Planck equation for two particular spectra is presented. Comparisons are made between our modified QLT (MQLT) model and a BGK model, between highly anisotropic scattering and moderately anisotropic scattering, and between fast particles and slow particles. It is shown that: (1) for moderately anisotropic pitch-angle scattering, the initial ring-beam distribution finally evolves into a broad Gaussian distribution and the QLT isotropic and MQLT anisotropic models could be rather well approximated by the simple relaxation time operator. (2) For highly anisotropic pitch-angle scattering, a moving pulse with a spatially extended flat tail is formed, and there exist some differences between the MQLT and BGK models. Specifically, at a particular pitch angle, the spatial distribution from MQLT model occupies a much wider region than that in the BGK model. (3) In the highly anisotropic scattering medium, more particles are cooled by adiabatic deceleration, some particles move a little faster, and the spatial distribution at a specific pitch angle is much more dispersed than that in the case of moderately anisotropic scattering. (4) Compared with the BGK model, the anisotropy persists for a little longer and some particles move a little slower; consequently, intensity profiles have a greater amplitude at later times in the MQLT model. (5) Finally, fast and slow particles have similar distribution characteristics, except that convection is much more important for slow particles.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicSolar and Space Plasma DynamicsFrench-language works237,207